On Wednesday night, the Planning Association for the Richmond (PAR) kicked off the first in a series of upcoming events in the neighborhood for the District 1 Supervisor candidates. About 40 people attended.

All 10 candidates were at the event, which started with each one introducing themselves for a few minutes. Event moderator, and PAR President Richard Correia then asked questions of the candidates. Due to the size of the candidate pool, each candidate was assigned “A” or “B”, and the questions alternated from group to group. Each candidate was given 1 minute to respond.

The questions covered a wide variety of topics from transportation to housing to homeless to crime and cleanliness. Candidates were also asked which proposition on the November ballot they thought was most important, and why. Some audience questions were also answered by the candidates towards the end of the evening.

THURSDAY, SEPT 29 | Housing Rights Committee District 1 Candidates Forum 6:30pm
Alamo Elementary School, 250 23rd Avenue
Join us to engage with candidates who are running for supervisor, specifically around issues that impact our community like housing, displacement, homelessness, small business stabilization and more.

THURSDAY, OCT 13 | SF League of Women Voters D1 Candidate Forum 6:30pm-8:30pm
University of San Francisco (exact location TBD)
The League of Women Voters San Francisco are partnering with the University of San Francisco to host a nonpartisan candidate forum for the District 1 Board of Supervisors race. Come hear from hopefuls running to represent District 1 on the Board of Supervisors in this open conversation.

WEDNESDAY, OCT 26 | Richmond District Blog D1 Supervisor Candidates Debate 7:30pm
Presidio Middle School, 450 30th Avenue
Come for the final chance to learn more about your District 1 candidates and hear their views on the top issues. Watch for more here on the blog including the chance to submit your questions for the debate.

Post navigation

14 Comments

Its not NIMBYISM to complain about our emerging homeless problem. From my point of view its NIMBYISM to complain about new housing. I support that, but no one i know supports more homeless in a family friendly neighborhood

well, the chron has weighed in with their endorsement and of course they chose to only mention the two candidates who have raised the most money and they endorse marjan, calling her a “moderate”http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/Vote-for-Marjan-Philhour-for-SF-supervisor-in-9228535.php
and so much for journalism….”Like many candidates, she has cranked out lengthy position papers. But she also takes stands. Homelessness needs humane attention, but sidewalk tents and abusive conduct can’t be allowed. On housing, she wants action on empty sites and transit-served streets where taller buildings can fit. Her negotiating skills will be tested by reviving the endlessly delayed plan for bus-only lanes on heavily traveled Geary Boulevard.”
“reviving the endlessly delayed plan for bus-only lanes…”?
the chron seems to have stopped covering the geary brt about 15 years ago.
and mar is not a progressive. he is a self serving regressive who in 8 years did not once serve the interests of the people who put him in office

i would like to thank whoever it is from the marjan or fewer campaign who keeps downvoting my comments…keep it up…means im getting to you
sandra has been on the school board for 8 years….how are sf schools doing? why should she be rewarded with another city gig? cuz she has made promises to the tenant association? attention tenants, rent control is hurting the ability to provide affordable housing…dont believe me? ask any economist
marjan is so proud of the work she has done that she keeps calling herself a small business woman. think about it…also think about the fact that she is backed by a pac being funded by the labor unions.
maybe the other candidates want to play nice…but im not a candidate
if either of these lovely ladies are elected, its another 4 years of mar
expect one to promote a candy tax to save all the kids from obesity…cuz no way can we stop at a sweet drink tax.

@Spencer, the fact you qualified your complaining about additional homelessness in the Richmond as being “not NIMBYISM” by noting it’s a family friendly neighborhood is the definition of NIMBY. We should be concerned about the uptick in homelessness across SF, not least of which as it flows more into the western neighborhoods.. but we’re not a special snowflake of a neighborhood. Every neighborhood deserves to have safe, clean streets.

@Walt
You seem far more confident in Marjan Philhour’s interest in preserving rent control than I do. The fact she has over $100k in donations from real estate interests leaves me pretty skeptical of her.
Also, your criticism of rent control is too simplified. Rent control can increase the costs for new renters, but the idea of removing it to lower new rents is predicated upon displacing longtime residents in the interest of new ones. Approaching it from that angle assumes that it’s acceptable to create economic conditions forcing people to move outside of the city.
And given that rent control doesn’t apply to buildings built since mid-1979, it’s hardly the cause of building construction being stunted. Anyone opening a new apartment building has zero concerns on rent control, and anyone renting a single family home never had rent control applied anyway.
The arguments for it are the same as that of Prop 13’s property tax freeze. I could easily argue that property taxes are as “high” (nationally they’re average) because of so many people with subsidized property tax that follows through inheritance.. it allows small and rundown buildings to remain longer instead of being redeveloped and resold, and artificially pushes up property values by reducing the number of units on the market. But would you support telling Grandma that she has to pay another $20k/year in taxes because the house she’s lived in for forty years has gone up in market value, and that she can go move somewhere else if she can’t cough up the dough?

Having watched the forum, and talked with many of the candidates, I share some of the skepticism being voiced. But I also think that much of what drives that skepticism derives from issues which are well beyond the ability of ANY D1 supervisor to impact alone. @Straver has pointed this out well (thank you!). I think that the pool of candidates this year is a fair one, and that the opportunity to have a supervisor more focused on actionable issues for our district (better services, improving environment for family & business, stronger representation in the city generally of our own community’s needs) is far more important, and far more substantial, than some of the more quixotic issues our representatives have championed in the past. I am looking for a balance of knowledge, stand on issues, a willingness to speak out, and an ability to both engage in and build compromise and coalitions with others in City Hall and beyond. And I’m hoping that whomever we do wind up electing can meet that challenge.

dont agree that Spencer’s comment is NIMBYism. While we all would like the city to tackle the homeless problem, hopefully without spending $270M per year with no improvement, the problem in the Richmond is new and there are many more kids here. no one wants division street to be a camp, but not many kids there. Many in Richmond, who do not deserve to see adult humans shitting on the street, drinking on the street, shooting up on the street, walking half naked, yelling profanities. Kids dont deserve this. its not about NIMBYism, its about protecting children. we dont get notified if these homless are on megans law list because we dont know whose these people are leaving on our doorstoops. This is a public health disaster, and I will fight with all my power to change it. More money is not the only solution . the city doesnt understand solutions often involved a carrot and a stick. the city only uses carrots, carrots that we keep paying for the make the problem worse. I can tell you personally that eveytime i see a homeless person within 3 blocks of my house, i ask them 1st to go to a shelter and i will drive them. ive only had one taker in past 3 years. for the others who refuse i tell them to leave the neighborhood. Are they going somewhere else ? yes, but i have an ethical obligation to protect my wife and kids. Excuse me if i dont trust a drugged out vagrant to sleep on my stoop when im out of town. I would encourage more people to take these steps if the city wont do anything.

i have to agree with jimbo. there is now a mini homeless camp at the corner of geary and arguello, across the street from roosevelt jr high. this is unacceptable.
but cannot fix the problem unless the state and fed change certain laws.
vagrancy laws may be unconstitutional, health and safety laws are not. im sorry, you dont get to put my health and safety at risk just because you choose to refuse treatment or a place to sleep.
as for the comment on rent control. 82 percent of sf residents live under rent control…the exception is not the rule. and to claim that the problem is that many owners, because of prop 13, refuse to sell their multi-family homes just so they can be developed, is absurd.
what right does anyone have to tell a property owner to seel their residence or even biz just because more living space is needed and secondly, were every small apt complex owner to sell their building so that developers can swoop in and build 6 story monstrosities, the reason people want to move to the richmond district, goes right out the door
this is the same reasoning that the city wants to destroy geary in order to rebuild it to look like wilshire blvd in los angeles….its a terrible thought

sorry to go ot, or maybe not, but in july you had a blog post about the arguello street project and was presented with a map that represented less than half of the project. there is a reason for this and for why the walk through ended at arguello and balboa….they lied….here is what was signed off on, on august 8th and not formally presented to the public or residents of arguello blivdhttps://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/agendaitems/2016/8-16-16%20Item%2010.4%20Traffic%20Modifications%20-%20Arguello%20Blvd.%20Safety%20Project.pdf
couple things to note. the mta’s projects have nothing to do with making our streets safer. their goal is clearly spelled out in this paragraph
GO
AL
:
This action supports the following SFMTA Strategic Plan Goal and Objectives:
Goal 1 – Create a safer transportation experience for everyone, and
Objective 1.3: Improve the safety of the transportation system.
Goal 2 – Make transit, walking, bic
ycling, taxi, ridesharing and carsharing the preferred
means of
travel.
Objective 2.1: Improve customer service and communications.
Objective 2.2: Improve transit performance.
Objective 2.3: Increase use of all non-private auto modes.
they are engaged in social engineering to remove all private vehicles from san francisco. a noble fools errand.
please look at page 3 and how many red zones, no parking and no stopping zones will be created or have already been created on arguello. also note that while the average car length is 13.5 feet, the mta has made car lengths much longer (example: 7 car lengths=150 feet….when in reality that is 11 car lengths)
they have removed 150 feet of parking, right in front of rossi park. this was done without consulting park and rec.
as i type this, a van from the institute of aging is parked right at the corner of arguello and anza, blocking the new right hand turn lane….heh

fewer solicits from school district employees
marjan’s campaign has so far received 30k from a labor union funded pac
and they are still the front runners
wake up people or you are looking at another 8 years of mar

The blog’s update on the Alexandria Theater development says that there will be 43 residential units of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms and that 5 of these units will be below market rate. That makes 11.7 percent of the units that will be below market rate, which as we all know, is more expensive than most SF residents can afford. I thought this project was supposed to be housing for seniors. What happened??? How was this project approved with so few below market rate
units? By the way, did the developer have to pay the the true cost of the transit impact of their project?

Thank you, Antonio White, for live streaming the debate!! I believe all the debates should be live streamed, so all interested residents can hear the what the candidates have to say. And residents should be able to submit questions that the candidates can answer during the debate. But candidates should also write a more detailed response that they can post on their own website. The answers the candidates gave during the PAR debate were often superficial and disappointing.

martha,
10k units are being built in the mission
the alexandria was never set aside for elderly housing. already have that at geary and arguello…another project that was ramrodded through where the developer, with an assist from the city, lied about the traffic, parking and economic impact.
as for your comment on the forum. you are right, the answers were superficial and disappointing. but that is what happens when one has 1-2 minutes in which to formulate a response…although jungreis did a very good job.
and there was one question that did expose at least one of the candidates. philhour had to state in public that she is a political consultant. something that insiders, political geeks and the other candidates know…but the general public does not